Posted on 12/06/2012 9:47:52 AM PST by ksen
After dabbling in creationism earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., clarified that he does believe that scientists know the Earth is “at least 4.5 billion years old.”
“There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old,” Rubio told Mike Allen of Politico. ”I was referring to a theological debate, which is a pretty healthy debate.
“The theological debate is, how do you reconcile with what science has definitively established with what you may think your faith teaches,” Rubio continued. “Now for me, actually, when it comes to the age of the earth, there is no conflict.”
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
Maybe if you read it again, say, 25 times, you might understand it.
I understand just fine. You think anyone who rejects creationism (the Pope) goes to hell. A typical brain dead useless creationist argument.
You misunderstand.
God is talking about wilfull, deliberate rejection of revealed Truth.
A man’s words and deeds will also judge him.
To you acceptance of evolution is willful deliberate rejection of revealed Truth - so me and the Pope and millions of other Christians are in big trouble!
What a lame and useless argument.
Creationism really isn't good for much other than condemning people to hell apparently.
What a weak and useless argument - if you don't agree with me - you disagree with God - welcome to the Hellfire!
Can you feel the love?!?!?
I hope you are ready for your judgment.
I will pray for you.
You are pretty much of a twister of other people’s statements. You are the one who made the remark about the Pope and made lame and useless arguments.
If one repents and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins, he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, Who indwells him forever and who empowers him, along with the Word of God, to live a Christ-like life, and who gives him a love for God’s truth and a desire to obey God. This is what the Bible teaches.
The Christian life begins, not ends, with Christ. There is a life to be lived, and a person’s life (thoughts, words, deeds) gives evidence of his/her salvation. We are to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18).
In order to grow we must believe his Truth, His Bible, not selectively reject parts of it, for whatever reason.
As a Christian I will not be judged at the GWT because the Lord Jesus clothed me in His righteousness when I trusted Him as my Savior. At the judgment seat of Christ my deeds will be judged and all that were worthless will be burned up and there will be a loss of reward. This is true for every believer in Christ.
But at the GWT judgment unbelievers will be judged and cast into the lake of fire.
I’m sorry that creationism is too much for you to take. As I pointed out, God claims to be man’s Creator and the Creator of everything that has existence. His Son, also mentioned creation, as did the apostle Peter and many others. Truth divides. I hope that it is something that you must reconcile in your spiritual life in order to not grieve His Spirit and to grow in your faith, rather than being something that is indicative of your spiritual condition of not being saved. Same goes for every person—pope, prince or peon.
I don’t need to twist your words they are twisted enough! You think you speak for God and are above judgement! You think you understand the Bible better than the Pope, a renowned lifelong Bible scholar! And you think anyone who disagrees with your idiotic creationism is bound for hell! I will pray for you.
Yep, they are also very weak re: the thermodynamic laws. Zeroth, [my favorite btw] along with 1-3, yet zeroth aka zero being realized last yet obviously in place before 1-3, hence named zeroth. Laws which will always supercede any of their pet theories.
And, no, one truly can not play semantics with those thermodynamic laws - they constantly do it anyways to prop up said pet theories though...
I wish some of these exclusionary folks would simply meditate on this exclusionary verse before spouting off about others damning them to hell.
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.”
According to some other verses God knows the true conditions of everyone’s heart. He never says being duped by the lies and liars of this world would doom anyone to hell rather what one chooses to do re: Jesus as their own personal Saviour and their words and actions reflecting upon the eternal condition within said heart.
You prolly still don’t get it, do you amd? Course if you like science by consensus / majority positions then why not also for one’s spiritual beliefs eh?
Creationism isn't technically "useless" from a scientific perspective. There's nothing to prevent you from formally theorizing divine creation. You just have to be prepared for the consequence of having to test God to prove it.
Do you reject the Word and Truth of God when you accept that the Earth moves? According to geocentric creationists one doesn’t believe the Bible if one isn’t a geocentrist. How far down the rabbit hole of absurd interpretation do you want to go?
When God says the ‘Earth is the center of it all’ can be interpreted in a number of ways. If I have to I can wait for God’s explanation. Imho it is only you and possibly, some old dead scholars from the middle ages, who very narrowly still define said scripture as geocentrism.
I must say I’ve certainly heard many plausible explanations - none of which I care to discuss any further with you due to the nature of your very limited biased and insulting view of all things re: science and evolution.
Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.”
Why do you reject the Truth and the Word that the Earth doesn't move?/s
Sorry if you find my observation -that supposing that physical forces account for physical phenomena (science) is useful; while ascribing supernatural causation to account for physical phenomena (creationism) is useless - insulting.
But the truth is the truth. Science is useful, and creationism is useless.
Far as I know, evos are the ONLY ones demanding that. Real Christians know better.
You need to get out of the dark ages when the Catholic church about at least ex-communicated Galileo for that.
How's that pope being a champion of science thing working out for you now?
Sorry if you find my observation -that supposing that physical forces account for physical phenomena (science) is useful; while ascribing supernatural causation to account for physical phenomena (creationism) is useless - insulting.
Sounds like your decision that there is no supernatural causation for natural events is based on a philosophical presupposition. If it's not, could kindly direct us to where the scientific research demonstrates no supernatural causation for the universe or observed natural events.
Sorry if you find my observation -that supposing that physical forces account for physical phenomena (science) is useful; while ascribing supernatural causation to account for physical phenomena (creationism) is useless - insulting.
There is no truth in science, only theories which have the potential to be disproved with the latest new scientific advancement. Today's scientific truth is tomorrow's theory relegated to the dustbin of history with no acknowledgement that it was wrong.
Truth is only found in God, who IS truth, and hence in Scripture which is the Holy Spirit, God breathed revelation to us about things which we would have no other way of finding out about.
Your problems with the interpretation are your problems, they don't present a problem for creationists who stand in awe at God's marvelous, intricate handiwork.
Psst, I think God was robed, not robbed. You might want to consider something besides a creationist hate site for accuracy in quoting Scripture. Someone who is literate, for example. I would question the ability of anyone who cannot spell to competently practice science.
They seem to think the same of anyone who rejects geocentrism! The claim is that all Bible believing Christians are geocentrists!
So how far down the rabbit hole of absurd literalism do you want to go? Does the Earth have four corners? Am I literally made from dust? Do I reject God via my knowledge that cellular processes involving DNA were also involved?
Science is of use in explaining and predicting reality. One is free to suppose supernatural causation - but to do so isn't science - and it leads nowhere. That is my point.
One cannot predict miraculous intervention - or use it to explain subsequent mundane events caused by natural forces; it is useless.
The argument that to reject creationism makes one not a Christian and destined for hellfire is rather idiotic - but really - what else do Creationists have - it is their #1 fallback position!
The denial of supernatural causation of creation, no matter when or how it occurred, doesn’t make logical sense.
The universe is finite, and has a beginning, before which was... what?
So, going from nothing to something, there had to be an “extra” natural, ie, supernatural event with an supernatural Cause.
It just seems silly to be offended that that supernatural event happened more recently than the secular world says it happened. Regardless of whether it was several billion years ago or several thousand years ago, there was a supernatural creation event, followed by nature acting according to the physical laws set up at that event.
Not nearly as far as you.....
Your rabid frothing over the issue is blinding you and rendering you incapable or rational though but rather broad brushing in a frenzy.
Scientific evidence to support a naturalistic cause to the universe, if you please, not that I EVER expect to see that from you. But you can try and I'll keep reminding you as needed if you forget.
That's really not all that difficult a concept to grasp.
As to the laws that govern the universe - gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics are the physical forces both necessary and sufficient to explain the formation and behavior of stars and planets.
They are useful. Supposing it all happened by miracle is useless.
Creation is not useless but what I do find useless are crevo debates with amd. Pinging to GourmetDan if you really think you have anything new and useful to add [I doubt you do though]...
YOU define it.
Supposing it all happened by miracle is useless.
No it isn't because it doesn't change how they work one iota.
So where'd the laws come from? Some solid scientific evidence to their origin, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.